After watching The King on Netflix and the Battle of Agincourt I was left wondering how did the knights on both sides tell who was who in the heat of battle. I would have thought it would be near impossible as the armor on both sides would look similar but at the same time they would need to be able to tell the difference unless they wanted to attack their own country men.

Sorry if this was asked before

I read in an older post that the main reason that the Muslim League and Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted an independent Muslim majority country was that they feared the minority status Muslims would face in a united India. Is this true?

Given the violence of partition and several wars between the two nations since then, plus the precarious situation of Pakistans dwindling fresh water based mostly out of India, how do historians view their decision today?

I know that they didn’t look like they’re portrayed in Braveheart but I’m still wondering whether there was any significant difference

Edit: I even heard somewhere that they wore yellow tunics similar to those of the irish, but I haven’t found any proof about this

In the Iliad we read many heroes used war chariots as "taxis", just to be brought into the the right place of the combat field. Once they reached the suitable place, they left the chariot and fought on foot. Yet, there are some episodes (one of them including Nestores) when heroes also fought onboard the chariot.

Some philologists explain this with the ignorance of later Greeks about the Mycenaean period. The source material on the Trojan war involved war chariots, but these were not used anymore when the poets were writing. So, not knowing how chariots worked, they just assumed they were used to bring the heroes wherever they needed. Indeed, we know war chariots existed in the Mycenaean times, because some tablets in Linear B (some of them found in Pylos) deal with war chariots and wheels for war chariots. Thus I assume this kind of vehicle existed and were somehow used in the Mycenaean period.

Yet, someone made me notice that using a war chariot implies having the right terrain to do it. These vehicles might not be very easy to drive and could have serious problems if the terrain was not perfectly suitable. They could be easily used in Egypt or Asia, where there are many plains, but should be extremely difficult to use in Greece, where there are mostly hills and mountains. According to this person, war chariots were actually used only as "taxis" in the Mycenaean period, as employing them differently would have been impossible. I replied that armies did not involve many warriors at the time, as they were city-based, so even war chariots were not as many as one may think. Being so few, they did not need a vast plain to be displayed and actually used in war. I added that many ancient historians and philologists agree in this point. This is when I realized I always heard that on Greek history lectures, but I cannot remember works or authors that dealt with this issue.

Tl;Dr Hence my question. In Mycenaean Greece were war chariots really used just to bring heroes in the heath of the battle and then abandoned, or were they actually employed in battle? Do you have any suggestion on what ancient and modern authors read to further investigate the matter? P.S. sorry for bad grammar and/or orthography. English is not my first language, I tried to do my best.

I spent last week in the eastern Pyrenees, in the Spanish side, near Andorra.

I found in one of the villages, near the border with France had some bunkers, made by the dictator Franco, after the Spanish Civil War. They are still in good condition and you can visit them with a local guide.

So, this means that Franco was afraid of an allied invasion, but how come it never came?

I am very ignorant when it comes to the American slave trade, so forgive me if my premises is wrong. Feel free to correct my question, if you will, before answering it.

So the concept of of slavery has existed for a very long time. If we go back to the Roman Empire or the Viking tribes of Scandinavia, white slaves were common. But almost two thousand years later, it seems that black slavery was the only kind in the US. From what I understand, many slaves were part of tribes in Africa that had lost to another tribe and taken as slaves and sold to e.g America. I assume that the risk of being taken as a slave by a winning tribe, was a concept well known among Africans, and feared. Whereas whites at that time could never see themselves as ending up as slaves.

So my question is, to what extent did African people in Africa go about their lives, while at the same time fear that any war they waged against another tribe, could end in slavery? Are there written account of the thoughts and fears of free Africans at the time?

Are there any books worth picking up, which deal with this time period? Written in English.

I’m looking for a readable overview of the period covering 19th and 20th century on the Italian peninsula. Roughly, something that will take me from Risorgimento (and ideally the years/events leading up to it) all the way to the end of the 20th century.

An ideal source, would be something along the lines of a well written introductory overview text for undergraduates. I want a comprehensive look at the politics, culture, and economy of Italy (but without a 50 page chapter on grain cultivation).

Thank you in advance for the recommendations.

Russia seemed to conquer every tribe in the Siberian steppe with ease but for some reason it never conquered Mongolia which seems odd given how interested it was in Manchuria which had more powerful nations going against them there. Mongolia had a low population why did it maintain independence where others could not like the Kazakhs

how the hell did Russia go from not being able to give all its troops in WW2 a rifle to being a world super power that the US had to constantly fight for global power? Was it all basically borrowed money and thats why the USSR collapse after awhile? I've seen and heard a lot of stuff about WW2 and the Cold War Era, but I've never heard an explanation for this.

How long did it take to count the votes in American Presidential elections in the late 1700s/early 1800s to determine a "winner"

Before telegraphs.

I've always had this in my head as a historical fact about ww2, but recently I came upon some people (that were admittedly ussr sympathizers) that claimed that it was exaggerated. Is this true?

Also any quality reads about the history of Christianity or notable Japanese Christians would be greatly appreciated!

Like, how’d they make money to pay their mortgages or rents, buy groceries, etc? I’d imagine being a civil rights leader wasn’t a paying gig back in the ‘60s. Did they have “day jobs”? Did they survive off donations and the like?

edit: yeesh, didn't expect this many upvotes -- no answer yet but here's hoping I get one!

I have wondered this since reading that it was not until World War I that Gillette marketed a razor specifically designed for women to shave their legs. The hairless ideal for females seems ubiquitous in Greek sculptures and nineteenth century paintings, and every century in between. Did they have early kinds of razors? Or waxing? Or did artists just not paint their body hair?

Many historians or documentaries, when they touch the subject of the Bronze Age collapse they always talk about the Sea People and their contribution to the almost apocalyptic event. But their identity, to my knowledge remains unknown.

Now the Mycenaeans had a strong naval presence, establishing various trade routes that reached as far as England. Their civilization ended somewhere around 1100 BC, the end sealed with the Dorian Invasion or Migration. There are many theories suggesting that Mycenaean Greek collapse had something to do with a civil war. So it was a "Self-destruction". Greeks have a long tradition of schism and wars between them ( Greek Civil War of 1823-25 fought during the Greek revolution, The National Schism between Venizelos and Constantine I 1911-1922 when on one point in 1915-1917 Greece was split in half, The Greek Civil War of 1946-1949) and all of them only in the 20th century. Previous well known conflicts like the Three Peloponnesian Wars and the Byzantine Iconoclasm. So really civil war is in my country's genes.

Now sorry for the wall text but this is my question. Since there's a theory about Mycenaean Greece destroying itself on a rival conflict, is there any chance the Sea People had Greek origins and were possibly Mycenaeans? Which could also explain the Trojan War. Since Troy VIIa appears to have been destroyed by a war and there are traces of fire. Mycenaeans forced to migrate or invade other nations like Egypt and the Hittites, or even becoming pirates.

Edit :Sorry for any mistakes English isn't my native language

So, from my understanding, the air forces that were sent to attack Pearl Harbor were sent out from various aircraft carriers in the vicinity, such as the IJN Akagi and IJN Kaga, northwest of Hawaii.

These ships would have had to have traveled deep into what is, internationally, neutral water, but in the eyes of The USA, is within their sphere of influence of The Pacific Ocean.

Sending multiple aircraft carriers and other vessels would've been seen as a serious incursion, and one that isn't likely to be overlooked or unnoticed.

Secondly, the Imperial Japanese Navy didn't ever attempt a marine landing on Hawaii, due to supply range issues. So, wouldn't the same supply issues that prevented an amphibious assault on Hawaii also have prevented The Pearl Harbor Attacks.

So, simply put, my question is, how did the Japanese Empire outfit a fleet with enough fuel and supplies to not only launch an attack against Hawaii, but do it with the utmost secrecy and surprise?

The microwave oven seems like it would have been a quantum leap for food prep. Did people trust this new technology when it was first introduced? Were early adopters seen as risk takers? Basically was there any backlash from people who didn’t trust this new technology?

And what are some of the oldest ancient swears we know?

As an avid listener of classical music, I’ve heard lots of people make this comparison, mainly as a way to argue that classical music used to be way cooler back in the day (i.e., 200+ years ago) than people view it now.

But I can’t help but question if that’s necessarily accurate as a 1:1 comparison. After all, most historic composers were employed by noble courts, wrote works on commission from wealthy patrons for their private entertainment, and often debuted their major works in state theaters and opera houses where only the local elite would be in attendance.

So I get that most people aren’t trying to be academic when they say Mozart or Haydn or Beethoven were “rock stars” in their own time, but is there any sort of parallel in terms of their popularity or recognizability across class lines? Would the average Londoner have recognized Handel if he bumped into him on the street, or been familiar with any appreciable body of his work?